You can’t call them “anti-life” - from the California Catholic Bishops

  • Thread starter Thread starter Caveman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Caveman

Guest
From the California Catholic Daily;

You can’t call them “anti-life”
California bishops issue political action guide to pastors and parishes

Pastors and parishes may participate in some political action but may not use phrases such as “anti-life” to describe a candidate or a party, says a document released last month by the California Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the state’s Catholic bishops. In its specific “Guidelines for Advocacy and Political Action,” the document says that “individual citizens are free to fully engage in partisan politics.” It advises that “religious leaders … **should avoid taking positions **on candidates or participating in political party matters even when acting in their individual capacity,” since they might find it “difficult to separate their personal activity from their public role as a Church leader.”

Lest they jeopardize their IRS tax exempt status, churches may not in any way “engage in partisan politics such as supporting or opposing individual political candidates for office,” says the document… But no diocesan or parish “entity or organization may endorse, oppose or evaluate any political party or candidate for public office,” says the bishops’ document. Neither may they contribute in any way to candidates, campaigns, or political action committees. Examples of such prohibited activities, says the document, include “labeling a candidate or party as ‘**pro-school aid’ **or ‘anti-life,’” for “such a practice removes objectivity by not allowing readers to evaluate a candidate’s position themselves.”

The California Catholic Conference itself “reviews all of the statewide ballot initiatives and referenda,” and the bishops either together or individually choose “to support, oppose or take no position on each measure,” says the document. This being the case, it continues, "when neither the California Catholic Conference nor the (arch)diocese has taken a public position on a specific measure, a parish or Catholic organization should not do so without previous consultation with the bishop.” [Emphasis in original.] Using church facilities for groups supporting or opposing legislation “should rarely be allowed,” says the document. And, “*only with the specific permission of the diocesan bishop and the local pastor *should Church facilities be used for signature gathering to place an initiative on the ballot.” [Emphasis in original.]
 
Oh for the days when the men in white collars and bishop’s mitres actually aspired to become saints, spoke the truth of the gospel courageoulsy and, did not fear the loss of financing from the secular leadership!
Dear God, I pray you, give us bishops like Polycarp, Irenaeus, Augustine. Send us men unafraid of the government like Bishop Sheen. Men who will not let their desire of money, “the root of all evils; which some coveting have erred from the faith…” guide their day to day decisions as to how to instruct their priest to preach the Truth!
God help us! The day has come when the men of God care more about their tax exempt status than the Truth!
 
And why is that in this part of the country you will have candidates actually attend the church and speak from the pulpit?

The Catholic bishops need a large dose of faith and courage. Anti-life not accurate? Ok. How about anti-human? How else would you describe a candidate who is for letting a baby die that survives an abortion attempt? He voted against a measure that would make this illegal. But all anyone ever talks about is how he is for HOPE. I guess everyone can have hope except babies.

Did you know that the Catholic Norbertine college in Wisconsin invited another anti-LIFE candidate on campus to talk?

We lose more American HUMANS every day than have been lost in the Iraq conflict. And the California Catholic bishops want us to keep quiet.

I am disgusted.
 
And why is that in this part of the country you will have candidates actually attend the church and speak from the pulpit?
That is only if the candidate is of the leftist/liberal/Marxist variety. If a conservative even looks at a church, the left goes ballistic and demands the IRS persecute them.

Yes, there is a double standard.
 
I think that the clergy can get the point across about what is important without specifically identifying or labeling particular persons.

If my priest talks about abortion as being wrong, and I hear a political candidate claim they are *for *abortion, putting 2 and 2 together is pretty easy. I can easily conclude it would always be wrong for me to vote for that candidate, whoever they are. I don’t need names.

The problem, to me, is that we all know the right choice, but we don’t always choose it, at least not all of us do. If all of us did, abortion would no longer be an issue.
 
And, “*only with the specific permission of the diocesan bishop and the local pastor *should Church facilities be used for signature gathering to place an initiative on the ballot.” [Emphasis in original.]
That is kind of interesting.

Michigan had a petition drive to override our pro-choice Governess’s veto of legisltation banning partial birth abortion.

Cardinal Maida MANDATED that pastors make parish facilities availble for any parishioners who wanted to gather signatures.
 
I wonder if the holy Blessed Mother Theresa, were she alive and male, would qualify for the priesthood in the dioceses of California?

She addressed the subject of abortion at the National Prayer Breakfast in 1994, with President Clinton in attendance.

She said:
I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?

How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world.

Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.
Good thing she didn’t have to run her speech through the California Catholic bishops.
 
I wonder if the holy Blessed Mother Theresa, were she alive and male, would qualify for the priesthood in the dioceses of California?

She addressed the subject of abortion at the National Prayer Breakfast in 1994, with President Clinton in attendance.

She said:

Good thing she didn’t have to run her speech through the California Catholic bishops.
Blessed Teresa didn’t name a politician and call them out on their support for abortion. So there would be no problem.
 
Blessed Teresa didn’t name a politician and call them out on their support for abortion. So there would be no problem.
Well former President and Senator Clinton felt there was a problem as they refused to stand up with the others and applaud Mother Teresa.
 
That is only if the candidate is of the leftist/liberal/Marxist variety. If a conservative even looks at a church, the left goes ballistic and demands the IRS persecute them.

Yes, there is a double standard.
Maybe not. Below is a link to a report of a liberal Episcopal church in Pasadena, CA getting in trouble with the IRS for making anti-war statments prior to the election a couple of years ago. At the time, many felt that the church was being targeted because of it’s anti-Bush stand. See the story for details - it’s really pretty interesting.

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177651,00.html
 
Maybe not. Below is a link to a report of a liberal Episcopal church in Pasadena, CA getting in trouble with the IRS for making anti-war statments prior to the election a couple of years ago. At the time, many felt that the church was being targeted because of it’s anti-Bush stand. See the story for details - it’s really pretty interesting.

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177651,00.html
Swan,
Was that the exception, or the rule? To every absolute, there’s the odd anomoly.
 
And perhaps they’ll need to answer to God about that.
Melanie,
And as Catholics, we have the duty to “admonish the sinner” and “instruct the ignorant”. Aren’t those two of the Spiritual Works of Mercy?
 
Melanie,
And as Catholics, we have the duty to “admonish the sinner” and “instruct the ignorant”. Aren’t those two of the Spiritual Works of Mercy?
Yes, although that wasn’t my point. If you read more of the thread, I believe it is entirely possible to put forth the message clearly to a vast group of people without calling out individuals and labeling them. If you then wish to speak with an individual privately about their individual sin, that would be appropriate and would expose the church to no liability.

Everyone is throwing in all sorts of different scenarios here and not all of them are analogous to the original topic.
 
Maybe churches should not be granted tax-exempt status. Then the California Bishops would have no excuse not to freely speak out against politicians who continue to promote abortion on demand and accept funds from Planned Parenthood, etc.

Somehow I suspect this directive is masking a more sinister motive on the part of the California bishops, that is, to foster an American progressive Catholic agenda. I truly hope this is not the case, but I, like many others, remain skeptical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top